User talk:Gcardinal/Archive 1
P (removing redirect). -Auron 08:24, 19 April 2007 (CEST) Hi I suggest you lock this down, and start over ~ practically everything on the site is violating copyrights. Check the main page's talk page — Skuld 18:42, 19 April 2007 (CEST) : There is no problems with any copyrights issues here. Read post on main page. gcardinal 21:55, 19 April 2007 (CEST) :: Ahh and no we are not going to close this down :) gcardinal 21:55, 19 April 2007 (CEST) Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). You MUST provide the names of every author of the articles in question. — Skuld 23:04, 19 April 2007 (CEST) ::: No you are wrong. From copywrigh on GuildWiki : In English, this means that any original thought you create is yours, but you license it permanently to us. We create derivative works based upon your original content—that's the nature of a wiki. We, in turn, under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 license, relicense these works under the same license. ::: What does this mean? Very simple what ever is posted on GuildWiki are written under CC ANCSA 2.0 license. So copyright holder are not the authors but the GuildWiki. When people posted it there they agreed to that copyright. No we just coping what GuildWiki have copyright on under the therm of they license. So yes We W-I-L-L add a link to each build taken from GuildWiki that it was originaly taken from they site. This statment will be however pointless since they will wipe out they build sections. So in the end picture is very clear here. GuildWiki has copyright, they use CC ANCSA 2.0, we re-use they work under same license and will credit GuildWiki SITE ONLY, not the users. gcardinal 23:12, 19 April 2007 (CEST) :::: Fyren created this when people were copying content over from GuildWiki to the GWW - http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/User:Fyren/Licensing - it holds relevence. — Skuld 23:22, 19 April 2007 (CEST) ::::: No its not. It talk about migration between 2 different wiki with totally different policy. We are taking stuff and re-releasing it under same license. Sure they and other admin's will work to stop our site, there no big news. But in the end they will have to apply to CC license. gcardinal 00:03, 20 April 2007 (CEST) :::: Fyren's page is talking about content not being able to be moved between GuildWiki and ANet's wiki because each site uses a difference license. With this site, using the same license, the content from GuildWiki can be copied. At least that's my interpretation.. but IANAL. Jaofos 00:08, 20 April 2007 (CEST) :::::PvXBuild is violating CC: 4d. I have read CC for the first time but I think PvXBuild is ok if the entire history of the page together with the discussion page is copied: the history/discussion has all the original authors. Perhaps we should ask Fyren, he seems to know a lot about this stuff. --Vazze 04:52, 20 April 2007 (CEST) ::::::Yeh, on copying the whole page I see some contributions have appeared on my list - - you only have the last edit made, not the full history - http://www.pvxbuilds.com/index.php?title=Build:A/any_no_lead_atk_sin&action=history for example. — Skuld 17:00, 20 April 2007 (CEST) ::::::: This discussion if over. We do not violate any copyright rules. GuildWiki copyright is: ::::::: ... This means that, while you (AUTHOR) retain copyright of your content, we will always have the right to distribute it for free. ::::::: Ones again in english, GuildWiki ARE copyright holder of EVERETHING that was posted on they site. They site are under CC license so is ours. When GuildWiki has to deal with individual authors - we don't. The only thing we have to deal with is credits to GuildWiki. Please read the whole http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/GuildWiki:Copyrights and stop posting crap here. Read and understand before spamming this page again. gcardinal 23:27, 20 April 2007 (CEST) ::::::::gcardinal, have you checked out the link Vazze provided above? I'm not positive, but I think their interpretation might be right. It says "If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied." ::::::::Just because Guildwiki "has the right to distribute it for free" doesn't mean that they hold the copyright, and doesn't mean the works can be taken for free. Have you looked at any of the scripts that have been written to grab the author's names from an article's history? -- BrianG 00:32, 21 April 2007 (CEST) ::::::::: Its not becouse GuildWiki has the right to desribute it for free. It is all about this line: ::::::::: In English, this means that any original thought you create is yours, but you license it permanently to us. ::::::::: What does this mean for us? Very simple, the only copyright holder we have to deal with are GuildWiki as we using they copyright policy and we re-distributing it under they license. Only GuildWiki has to deal with AUTHORS, we don't. The only thing we have to think about is to credit GuildWiki. No one else. It will be actualy wrong to credit each author as it is a GuildWiki internal job to take care of. gcardinal 00:48, 21 April 2007 (CEST) ::::::::::Do you have any idea what "licensing" is about?? Are you just talking nonsense? Definition of "licensing": Permission to do something which, without such permission, would be illegal. For example, a license to use digital information gives the Licensee permission to access and use the information under the terms and conditions described in the agreement between the Licensor and the Licensee. The Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 license does NOT transfer the copyright from the author to the licensee. They are licensing it to GuildWiki so GuildWiki can use that content, the copyright remains with the author. The entire point of the by-nc-sa license is for the author's copyright to be respected. ::::::::::Pay attention to the "In English" part, it's another way of saying "In other words..." That entire paragraph in gw:GuildWiki:Copyrights is simply rephrasing the by-nc-sa license for users who may get confused by the legalese. It's not setting any new terms. GuildWiki cannot set any new terms, because GuildWiki does not have the copyright. GuildWiki is simply a distributor of that content. --Dirigible 11:45, 21 April 2007 (CEST) :I would suggest to remove all content that wasn't originally created here if it is not attributed to the original author. Like Dirigible said, crediting guildwiki is like crediting a non-commercial publishing company but not the author who wrote the article when citing references. Besides why start a buildwiki with all the baggage and garbage from the original guildwiki anyway? Lania Elderfire 17:48, 21 April 2007 (CEST) :: Nothing will be removed. We will fix the problem gcardinal 18:14, 21 April 2007 (CEST) ::: I would think that a screen capture or text capture of the history tab should be sufficient to satisfy the attribution requirements - anyone see a problem with that solution as long as the history is copied with all of the revision history? Create a new sub-page for that, and include a link to it from the copied article. My (non-legal-background) understanding is that should do it. --- Barek (talk • ) - 18:17, 21 April 2007 (CEST) ::::A Screenshot of the history tab is a good idea. As far as I know that should work. Lania Elderfire 20:34, 21 April 2007 (CEST) Policy Either you need to start reviewing and accepting policies (I have transferred a few from GW and will transfer more later) you need to start appointing a coupla Admins who can. The policies I transferred are ones that are necessary but that will also not generate a lot of dissent (if any) and which can remain in their existing form. Things like BUILDS and VETTING for example need to be discussed, but I doubt anyone is going to disagree with NPA. Obviously, they need to be checked a coupla times, but I can safely assume that they are close to being in proper working order and will generate consensus if necessary. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 01:45, 20 April 2007 (CEST) A working list can be found on my user page. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 01:46, 20 April 2007 (CEST) List of tasks (urgent) #Remove all current builds (we have no choice). #As you (or your bot) re-add each build, include the proper attribution (a copy of the build's history as a subpage). #Take a peek at . With your bot, change all "Builds" link to Main Page link (that was the link from GWiki). For the rest, just make the bot redirect to the corresponding GWiki article; waste of time to copy each article from GWiki over to here. Thanks :) -Auron 10:03, 21 April 2007 (CEST) Hi, I'm the guy who wrote http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/GuildWiki:Copyrights ...and, because I wrote it, I'm in a pretty good position to tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about. You must attribute every article you copy to all contributors. While some other sites on the Internet have been allowed to merely link to our history tabs to fill the requirement, because the articles you're copying will not have history tabs in 10 days, this solution will not work for you. You cannot credit merely the GuildWiki. You must remove all articles that do not attribute their source. Fail to do so, or at least to demonstrate reasonable effort in removing or providing attribution, and you're breaking copyright law. —Tanaric 14:46, 21 April 2007 (CEST) :Yeah Tanaric, we know we have to attribute and we are in the process of doing so. Fyren was extremely helpful and gave us a copy of all the histories for the builds, so hopefully we can get credit pages up and running shortly. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 18:18, 21 April 2007 (CEST)